-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
leica digilux feedback
- Thread starter MWood
- Start date
Memer
Well-known member
Love it-incredibly sharp pictures, fast multiple shots, looks sexy, fits my (large) hands beautifully. Yes, of course there's noise at higher "ASA's"--that's a digital characteristic, but no more than with other cameras. The anti-Digilux crowd (comprised mainly of those who have never used one) will rant and whine endlessly about "posterization" (meaning that pics taken without having been intelligently set can look bad), the lack of histogram capability, etc. Bottom line: A tremendous amound of quality camera for a very modest price.
mattv117058
New member
I've had my Leica Digilux 1 since September. I've really enjoyed it for many reasons, but especially because it is so fast (start up, no lag when taking pictures.). I only wished it had a larger optical zoom.
I posted a few sample pictures here:
http://www.pbase.com/mattv/digilux1
I posted a few sample pictures here:
http://www.pbase.com/mattv/digilux1
Eric Boe
Leading Member
Pro's:
Beautiful images at ISO 100 in daylight, or well within the range of the flash.
Con's:
High ISO noise.
I owned one for a short time, but returned it due to excessive high-ISO noise. Noise problem is known and well documented by:
1. Review in http://www.photo.net
2. Review in Shutterbug magazine
3. Comments in this forum by an engineer from Panasonic
All CCDs and CMOSs will exhibit noise at higher settings. My subjective opinion, which has been formed over the past 3 years of digital imaging, is that this particular sensor chip, used in only the Panasonic LC-5 and Leica Digilux-1, is noisier than its competition. If I were looking into a camera in this price class, I would probably consider the Sony 707 or 717, with the Nikon 5700 close behind.
I hope this helps.
Eric
Beautiful images at ISO 100 in daylight, or well within the range of the flash.
Con's:
High ISO noise.
I owned one for a short time, but returned it due to excessive high-ISO noise. Noise problem is known and well documented by:
1. Review in http://www.photo.net
2. Review in Shutterbug magazine
3. Comments in this forum by an engineer from Panasonic
All CCDs and CMOSs will exhibit noise at higher settings. My subjective opinion, which has been formed over the past 3 years of digital imaging, is that this particular sensor chip, used in only the Panasonic LC-5 and Leica Digilux-1, is noisier than its competition. If I were looking into a camera in this price class, I would probably consider the Sony 707 or 717, with the Nikon 5700 close behind.
I hope this helps.
Eric
Ze Pequeno
Forum Enthusiast
It's a distortion of truth to suggest that those of us who "rant/whine" about the Digilux haven't owned one. Wishful thinking, I suppose. I have owned both the Digilux and the Panasonic, and returned them both out of disappointment.
Apparently, this camera represents different things to different people. Some of us, who have relatively high standards for imaging, have been let down by the "image effects" seen in just about all of these camera's pictures. The actual term is "posterization," although a couple of members here object to that term as being "jargon" or "technobabble." The fact is that Posterization is as significant and reasonable a term as focus, resolution, ISO, or noise. Simply not having previous understanding of the word is no reason to dismiss it. I doubt many of us had a reason to use the term ISO before we started shooting with film. Was it "jargon" then? It's just a word, and it's appropriate here.
There are two things to consider. Yes, both of these cameras are very quick/responsive, and are closer to "real" rangefinders in operation than any other digital cameras. Their LCD screens are huge, and the cameras feel pretty good (the LC5, in my hands, feels better). But, if you are discerning about image quality, you will probably notice the posterization effect that has been well documented, although refuted by many owners. Also, the colors of these cameras is (can be) quite "vivid." It is often not accurate color, but it is bright. I prefer accuracy. If i want to bump up/alter color, I would rather do it myself.
An analogy: A friend of mine recently decided to buy a portable printer (4"x6" prints) for travel snapshots. Since we often travel together, I offered to buy ink/supplies for it if I could use it. When he had first tested it, I asked him if the ink "dot" was visible in the prints. He said, "No," and that the prints are "just like photofinisher's prints from film." When I eventually saw the prints for myself, I felt a bit misled. I could easily see the dots of ink from which the images are constructed. My friend is a very intelligent person, and of course, he had not been intentionally misleading. Simply, he is not a "photographer," and has a different sort of standards. This is not to demean him. Everyone just sees/doesn't see different things. Everyone expects different things. This, to me, is what is at play here.
There will be many people who will see the Digilux pictures and be thrilled with them. If you print at "normal" snapshot sizes, you may not ever notice posterization, as the resolution of most printers at that size many never reveal the defects. Even if you print larger, if you are not a critical user, you may be happy. But, in comparison to other cameras of this price range, the Digilux and LC5 create images that are substandard. If you were to look at images from a Nikon Coolpix or Canon G2, or Minolta or whatever, you won't find this effect. If you look at the sample images at http://www.steves-digicams.com , you can make the comparison for yourself. Look, especially, at the still life tests, and you can plainly see how the LC5 treats shadow areas. They're represented by blotchy areas, instead of continuous tone. This kind of thing fades away a bit at small print sizes, and is more noticeable at larger sizes. Also, you will certainly see it when editing images, as you should ALWAYS edit onscreen at larger sizes than the print size.
RE: ISO. It's been said by most, even those who love the Digilux, that only ISO 100 is usable. Normally, with compact digicameras, that's not too unusual, but good cameras will let you shoot at 200 with acceptable results. That's another f-stop, and can be valuable.
So, that's it. I feel it's an objective summary, although I will surely be flamed for it. But, whatever. You should probably trust the reviews of those who have demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of all the digital cameras, versus reviews of faceless individuals who's credentials, needs, and standards you know nothing of. So, read Steve's review of the LC5. You'll have to draw your own conclusions about why neither of these cameras are reviewed on this site, nor by the other reputable sites. The Panasonic representative who posts here has his own explanation which you should read. Beware, also, of certain magazine "blurbs," which touted these cameras, and were printed at about the same time as the cameras came to market. They were probably based on press releases, and the reputation of Leica lenses - not actual tests/reviews. And, the lens used is not actually manufactured by Leica. It is made, supposedly, to Leica specifications, or licensed by Leica, or just re-badged by Leica. All indications are that it resolves well, but that may be of no consequence if the in-camera processing is poor.
If you'd like a suggestion: Buy it. From a store that allows you enough time to perform your own tests. Shoot some pictures, look at them onscreen - the way you want to - and make some prints. Use your own printer, and/or order prints from a digital photofinisher. If, then, you like the way it operates, and don't have any qualms with the visual results, you've got your answer. If you're not happy, try the upcoming Canon G3 or Contax TVS digital.
Best of luck.
Ze Pequeno
Apparently, this camera represents different things to different people. Some of us, who have relatively high standards for imaging, have been let down by the "image effects" seen in just about all of these camera's pictures. The actual term is "posterization," although a couple of members here object to that term as being "jargon" or "technobabble." The fact is that Posterization is as significant and reasonable a term as focus, resolution, ISO, or noise. Simply not having previous understanding of the word is no reason to dismiss it. I doubt many of us had a reason to use the term ISO before we started shooting with film. Was it "jargon" then? It's just a word, and it's appropriate here.
There are two things to consider. Yes, both of these cameras are very quick/responsive, and are closer to "real" rangefinders in operation than any other digital cameras. Their LCD screens are huge, and the cameras feel pretty good (the LC5, in my hands, feels better). But, if you are discerning about image quality, you will probably notice the posterization effect that has been well documented, although refuted by many owners. Also, the colors of these cameras is (can be) quite "vivid." It is often not accurate color, but it is bright. I prefer accuracy. If i want to bump up/alter color, I would rather do it myself.
An analogy: A friend of mine recently decided to buy a portable printer (4"x6" prints) for travel snapshots. Since we often travel together, I offered to buy ink/supplies for it if I could use it. When he had first tested it, I asked him if the ink "dot" was visible in the prints. He said, "No," and that the prints are "just like photofinisher's prints from film." When I eventually saw the prints for myself, I felt a bit misled. I could easily see the dots of ink from which the images are constructed. My friend is a very intelligent person, and of course, he had not been intentionally misleading. Simply, he is not a "photographer," and has a different sort of standards. This is not to demean him. Everyone just sees/doesn't see different things. Everyone expects different things. This, to me, is what is at play here.
There will be many people who will see the Digilux pictures and be thrilled with them. If you print at "normal" snapshot sizes, you may not ever notice posterization, as the resolution of most printers at that size many never reveal the defects. Even if you print larger, if you are not a critical user, you may be happy. But, in comparison to other cameras of this price range, the Digilux and LC5 create images that are substandard. If you were to look at images from a Nikon Coolpix or Canon G2, or Minolta or whatever, you won't find this effect. If you look at the sample images at http://www.steves-digicams.com , you can make the comparison for yourself. Look, especially, at the still life tests, and you can plainly see how the LC5 treats shadow areas. They're represented by blotchy areas, instead of continuous tone. This kind of thing fades away a bit at small print sizes, and is more noticeable at larger sizes. Also, you will certainly see it when editing images, as you should ALWAYS edit onscreen at larger sizes than the print size.
RE: ISO. It's been said by most, even those who love the Digilux, that only ISO 100 is usable. Normally, with compact digicameras, that's not too unusual, but good cameras will let you shoot at 200 with acceptable results. That's another f-stop, and can be valuable.
So, that's it. I feel it's an objective summary, although I will surely be flamed for it. But, whatever. You should probably trust the reviews of those who have demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of all the digital cameras, versus reviews of faceless individuals who's credentials, needs, and standards you know nothing of. So, read Steve's review of the LC5. You'll have to draw your own conclusions about why neither of these cameras are reviewed on this site, nor by the other reputable sites. The Panasonic representative who posts here has his own explanation which you should read. Beware, also, of certain magazine "blurbs," which touted these cameras, and were printed at about the same time as the cameras came to market. They were probably based on press releases, and the reputation of Leica lenses - not actual tests/reviews. And, the lens used is not actually manufactured by Leica. It is made, supposedly, to Leica specifications, or licensed by Leica, or just re-badged by Leica. All indications are that it resolves well, but that may be of no consequence if the in-camera processing is poor.
If you'd like a suggestion: Buy it. From a store that allows you enough time to perform your own tests. Shoot some pictures, look at them onscreen - the way you want to - and make some prints. Use your own printer, and/or order prints from a digital photofinisher. If, then, you like the way it operates, and don't have any qualms with the visual results, you've got your answer. If you're not happy, try the upcoming Canon G3 or Contax TVS digital.
Best of luck.
Ze Pequeno
I really wanted to like your photos but unfortunately any Olympus seems to be able to do better.Greens overly saturated, and well it does look overly processed.JMOP
M
Michael Oersigh
Guest
Nice shots, I would definitely stick in there and make improvements. The Digilux looks like it has a lot of potential, certainly like that clear sharpness.
Michael
Memer
Well-known member
You've possibly noticed already that those who affect conspicuous disdain for the Digilux 1 like to mask their bias in pseudo-technical terms, usually with a sniffy, supercilious, condescending tone of tolerant superiority.
Ze Pequeno
Forum Enthusiast
I thought my comments were rather objective. I wrote from three perspectives:
1. There are issues.
2. There are no issues.
3. There are/may be issues, but they may be of no consequence.
I notice that you consistently are able to only see/express one viewpoint. Perhaps you have something to lose here?
I also advocated actually buying the camera you so gleefully tout. You do want people to experience it for themselves, right? Seems a public relations war of words is being waged. But, the truth is in the images.
I still have not seen a convincing body of posted images that Do Not exhibit the problems for which I returned my cameras. Not since Impress, pre-production LC5 pictures. If you could direct us all to a site that demonstrates otherwise, we would all express gratitude, I'm sure. And, please, the images should be large enough/high-res enough to be able to ascertain where the truth lies. The Larry Dale pix are swell, but they're small - any camera could do the same (quality-wise).
If you find the terms bewildering, perhaps you should ask for some assistance. I haven't seen anything discussed that is remotely difficult to comprehend. "Pseudo-technical?" With what, in particular, are you having trouble? And, please, next time, be more specific with your accusations.
Ze Pequeno
coopdog
Member
I made my own report about print image quality with this camera, a month or so ago. I printed various images at different sizes. On all formats my Tabloid size (11" x 17") prints came out more than adequate for my regional ad work. Most of my stuff never goes past 8x10 for now.
As far as who has what standards for viewing quality versus the next guy, we can go around all day. As for myself my backgroud started in post-production and I have been known to spot a tape dropout on a nine inch monitor from across a room. So, I really don't want to hear who has better "eyes" than the next guy. It's kind of like to fat contractors arguing over who has a more accurate tape measure!
I agree with Memer to an extent. But I don't want to say more because he may bite me and give me "technospeak" rabies or something.
Still Ze is right. You need to go out and get one and try it out. Just do your self a favor and have a quality print made! Don't just go and try to print on typing paper ran through your inkjet printer.
As for myself, however my final purchasing decision came down to another camera for now. I am going with the Minolta Dimage 7Hi. Not as "cool" as the digilux but I was swayed by the on board PC connection for studio lights, the ability to use AA batteries, and the ability to easily accept filters and the two macro flash options.
Still though the Digilux is a neat camer, and if it were not for specific needs that have arisen lately I would have gladly made this a companion to my Nikon 8008s SLR.
Hope this helps, sorry if this confuses.
Happy Shooting!!!
Coop 8)-~
As far as who has what standards for viewing quality versus the next guy, we can go around all day. As for myself my backgroud started in post-production and I have been known to spot a tape dropout on a nine inch monitor from across a room. So, I really don't want to hear who has better "eyes" than the next guy. It's kind of like to fat contractors arguing over who has a more accurate tape measure!
I agree with Memer to an extent. But I don't want to say more because he may bite me and give me "technospeak" rabies or something.
Still Ze is right. You need to go out and get one and try it out. Just do your self a favor and have a quality print made! Don't just go and try to print on typing paper ran through your inkjet printer.
As for myself, however my final purchasing decision came down to another camera for now. I am going with the Minolta Dimage 7Hi. Not as "cool" as the digilux but I was swayed by the on board PC connection for studio lights, the ability to use AA batteries, and the ability to easily accept filters and the two macro flash options.
Still though the Digilux is a neat camer, and if it were not for specific needs that have arisen lately I would have gladly made this a companion to my Nikon 8008s SLR.
Hope this helps, sorry if this confuses.
Happy Shooting!!!
Coop 8)-~
Memer
Well-known member
I couldn't agree more-well-stated and balanced. Bottom line is you buy what suits your needs and tastes. Do it because it's what you want or don't want rather than just react to the snide kind of "it's a great camera if you don't know much about photography and can't tell the difference between good and bad photos" type of comment.
I made my own report about print image quality with this camera, a
month or so ago. I printed various images at different sizes. On
all formats my Tabloid size (11" x 17") prints came out more than
adequate for my regional ad work. Most of my stuff never goes past
8x10 for now.
As far as who has what standards for viewing quality versus the
next guy, we can go around all day. As for myself my backgroud
started in post-production and I have been known to spot a tape
dropout on a nine inch monitor from across a room. So, I really
don't want to hear who has better "eyes" than the next guy. It's
kind of like to fat contractors arguing over who has a more
accurate tape measure!
I agree with Memer to an extent. But I don't want to say more
because he may bite me and give me "technospeak" rabies or
something.
Still Ze is right. You need to go out and get one and try it out.
Just do your self a favor and have a quality print made! Don't
just go and try to print on typing paper ran through your inkjet
printer.
As for myself, however my final purchasing decision came down to
another camera for now. I am going with the Minolta Dimage 7Hi.
Not as "cool" as the digilux but I was swayed by the on board PC
connection for studio lights, the ability to use AA batteries, and
the ability to easily accept filters and the two macro flash
options.
Still though the Digilux is a neat camer, and if it were not for
specific needs that have arisen lately I would have gladly made
this a companion to my Nikon 8008s SLR.
Hope this helps, sorry if this confuses.
Happy Shooting!!!
Coop 8)-~
leica has a forum from their web site http://www.leica-camera.com/home_e.htm
beam me up scotty
im giving it all shes got captain
--I made my own report about print image quality with this camera, a
month or so ago. I printed various images at different sizes. On
all formats my Tabloid size (11" x 17") prints came out more than
adequate for my regional ad work. Most of my stuff never goes past
8x10 for now.
As far as who has what standards for viewing quality versus the
next guy, we can go around all day. As for myself my backgroud
started in post-production and I have been known to spot a tape
dropout on a nine inch monitor from across a room. So, I really
don't want to hear who has better "eyes" than the next guy. It's
kind of like to fat contractors arguing over who has a more
accurate tape measure!
I agree with Memer to an extent. But I don't want to say more
because he may bite me and give me "technospeak" rabies or
something.
Still Ze is right. You need to go out and get one and try it out.
Just do your self a favor and have a quality print made! Don't
just go and try to print on typing paper ran through your inkjet
printer.
As for myself, however my final purchasing decision came down to
another camera for now. I am going with the Minolta Dimage 7Hi.
Not as "cool" as the digilux but I was swayed by the on board PC
connection for studio lights, the ability to use AA batteries, and
the ability to easily accept filters and the two macro flash
options.
Still though the Digilux is a neat camer, and if it were not for
specific needs that have arisen lately I would have gladly made
this a companion to my Nikon 8008s SLR.
Hope this helps, sorry if this confuses.
Happy Shooting!!!
Coop 8)-~
beam me up scotty
im giving it all shes got captain
Hi Ze,
Are you sure you talk about the new and yet released CONTAX TVS DIGITAL and not the DIGILUX LEICA!
MFO
Are you sure you talk about the new and yet released CONTAX TVS DIGITAL and not the DIGILUX LEICA!
MFO
Ze Pequeno
Forum Enthusiast
I'm not sure I understand your question. I haven't said that the TVS is or will be better than anything, since I haven't seen it/used it/read any reports about it. I merely suggested that if one weren't happy with the results of one camera, the TVS (among others) may be also worthy of an opportunity. The G3 isn't out either, so I really don't know what you're asking here.
I always advocate purchasing from a store that gives you a chance to test the equipment, so "trying" any camera shouldn't be a risk. I've also said that interested consumers should "try" cameras that I don't like or have personally rejected.
Could you clarify your post? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding this.
Ze
I always advocate purchasing from a store that gives you a chance to test the equipment, so "trying" any camera shouldn't be a risk. I've also said that interested consumers should "try" cameras that I don't like or have personally rejected.
Could you clarify your post? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding this.
Ze
Hi Ze,
Sorry i did not read carefully your comments...!
You were talking about leica digilux and panasonic lc5 cameras.
I'm waiting the Contax tvs digital with the 5 mb pixels but the best should be Zeiss zoom with 28-105 / 35 mm equivalent focal.
best
mfo
Sorry i did not read carefully your comments...!
You were talking about leica digilux and panasonic lc5 cameras.
I'm waiting the Contax tvs digital with the 5 mb pixels but the best should be Zeiss zoom with 28-105 / 35 mm equivalent focal.
best
mfo
Ann McRae
Veteran Member
Hi. I own and love a sony dsc f707. I do alot of sports shots, and as I am about to face another canadian winter, the sports are moving indoors. My issue with the 707 is its not great in the indoor soccer center. Can anyone speak to whether the lecia's faster shutter would help with this situation?
As well, I've only just stumbled across an ad for one, and am "ignorant" of any of its salient features such as MP and zoom capabilities.
Thanks
Ann
--
Canadian Ann
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.stfchallenge.com
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
As well, I've only just stumbled across an ad for one, and am "ignorant" of any of its salient features such as MP and zoom capabilities.
Thanks
Ann
--
Canadian Ann
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.stfchallenge.com
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
John Shafer
Member
There are three reviewson my site for the Digilux 1 right now. It has an averaged rating of 4.33 out of 5. If you own a Digilux I'd appreciate it if you would post a review.
Here's a link to that review page:
http://www.pcphotoreview.com/4,to,6,Megapixel/Leica,Digilux,1,/PRD_132917_4337crx.aspx
I believe there are some sample images in the digital camera gallery, too. So far the images I've seen have appeared on the noisy side.
--
John Shafer
http://www.PCPhotoREVIEW.com
http://www.PhotographyREVIEW.com
Here's a link to that review page:
http://www.pcphotoreview.com/4,to,6,Megapixel/Leica,Digilux,1,/PRD_132917_4337crx.aspx
I believe there are some sample images in the digital camera gallery, too. So far the images I've seen have appeared on the noisy side.
--
John Shafer
http://www.PCPhotoREVIEW.com
http://www.PhotographyREVIEW.com
madmaxmedia
Veteran Member
I'm not sure what you mean by faster shutter, but I assume you are referring to aperture since you mention dealing with lower light conditions.
What is the Sony lens maximum aperture? I believe it's actually pretty fast too- f2 to f2.4 at maximum zoom (from dpreview specs), which is actually 'faster' than the LC5 (f2/f2.5) Especially considering the greater zoom range. If this is what you are referring to, then this is as good as it gets with consumer digicams.
Try a higher ISO setting though, it will probably be worth the extra noise if it helps get you sharper shots.
Another option is to shoot in manual mode at a stop lower than the situation calls for. You can then use a photo editing program to bring the brightness up. Both options are at least worth experimenting with.
-Steve
http://www.pbase.com/madmaxmedia
What is the Sony lens maximum aperture? I believe it's actually pretty fast too- f2 to f2.4 at maximum zoom (from dpreview specs), which is actually 'faster' than the LC5 (f2/f2.5) Especially considering the greater zoom range. If this is what you are referring to, then this is as good as it gets with consumer digicams.
Try a higher ISO setting though, it will probably be worth the extra noise if it helps get you sharper shots.
Another option is to shoot in manual mode at a stop lower than the situation calls for. You can then use a photo editing program to bring the brightness up. Both options are at least worth experimenting with.
-Steve
--
http://www.pbase.com/madmaxmedia
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum